Standing Committee E

[Derek Conway in the Chair]

Housing Bill

Clause 4 - Inspections by local housing authorities to see whether category 1 or 2 hazards exist

Edward Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 220, in
clause 4, page 4, line 22, at end insert—
 'or,
 (c) the Member of Parliament for that district, or
 (d) a further or higher education institution located in that district, or
 (e) a Primary Care Trust serving that district.'.
 The Government inserted subsection (2) into the Bill on the recommendation of the Select Committee. The subsection provides a mechanism for making official complaints to the housing authority that the housing authority must act upon in order to trigger an inspection. We debated the matter a little at a previous sitting, and we discussed the fact that the complaints procedure can be triggered without subsection (2). It can be triggered either through a housing authority review, undertaken under clause 3, or for any other reason. Such reasons could include ordinary complaints from a tenant or anyone else—perhaps a neighbour—who is concerned about the state of a dwelling. However, it is possible that complaints from tenants or neighbours may not be taken seriously and may not be investigated expeditiously. 
 I do not wish to malign local housing authorities—they take their duties seriously—but Liberal Democrat Members wonder whether the official complaint process should be strengthened a little. Amendment No. 220 seeks to add to the two mechanisms in subsection (2)—the option of going to a justice of the peace or a parish or community council—the option of going to a Member of Parliament, a further or higher education institution located in the relevant district, or a primary care trust. 
 In many ways, our proposals make more sense than the provisions of subsection (2), although I realise that that provision was recommended by the Select Committee. Seeking the help of a justice of the peace is normal procedure, going through due process, but I wonder what the JP will know of the property concerned. Obviously, photographic or other evidence could be produced, but it may take a lengthy period and the JP may not have the necessary knowledge. A parish or community council might be helpful in some areas, but I represent a part of a borough that does not have such councils, so that provision would not help my constituents. That is why we decided on the three 
 additions. They are not the only possible additions, and they may not be the best; indeed, the Government or other members of the Committee may suggest alternatives. However, we felt that they were best for three reasons. 
 I am sure that hon. Members will agree that Members of Parliament deal with an awful lot of housing matters. I do, and I am sure that the Minister does. We are occasionally called to visit constituents in their homes to deal with specific housing matters such as overcrowding and other conditions such as damp, and we often make judgments. We do not deal with all housing complaints that come to us—if we did, we would have time for nothing else—but it happens occasionally. I believe that we are well placed to do that. 
 Including further or higher education institutions is relevant because they have a duty of care to their students. They have welfare and housing officers, and an accommodation department, and they could undertake to investigate students' complaints. Primary care trusts are strategically linked to general practitioners and health visitors, so they would have a role if we were concerned about the impact of the poor state of a property on someone's health. 
 Given the rationale of the amendment, it might make sense to add those provisions to the official complaint process in subsection (2). I doubt whether the Minister will accept the amendment, but I hope that he will share his thoughts with the Committee and possibly give an assurance that he will consider the question further, just as the Government did with the Select Committee's recommendations.

John Hayes: It is good, Mr. Conway, to be back in the throes of our work, which we are beginning to enjoy immensely.
 The amendment is a useful stimulant to discussion because it throws real light on one of the issues that we discussed at length on Tuesday. I have some sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), in that widening the opportunity for people to gain such a response from the relevant authority is good and healthy. 
 Indeed, we tabled an amendment—it was not selected, Mr. Conway, but I do not question the infinite wisdom of the Chair—that would have widened that opportunity still further. It would have widened it to people living in the parish who might come together to request action. My reasoning is that if a group of people in a street or neighbourhood are beginning to feel the effects of a house or houses that are faulty or causing difficulty in one form or another, then in addition to having the opportunity to make representations to their MP or parish council, as the Government favour, they should be able to do so directly. However, that is not the subject of this short debate, because that amendment was not selected.

Edward Davey: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's amendment was excellent. Perhaps he will have the chance to move it at a later stage. I should have thought that it could be referred to as a new localist amendment.

John Hayes: I notice that after my stinging criticisms of him during the previous sitting, the hon. Gentleman is going some way to make up ground with me. That is important and I note it. I shall be less unkind to him in future; it is not fair to shoot rats in a barrel.
 It is important for the Government to take the hon. Gentleman's argument on board, as there are more than a few means of encouraging the sort of action that we all feel would be appropriate. The Government suggest a justice of the peace for the district, or the parish or community council for the area in which the house is situated. Opposition Members are staunch defenders of the roles of parish and community councils; they are extremely important representative bodies, and we associate ourselves with them entirely. Justices of the peace are important local figures; again, we do not suggest that they should not be asked to play such a role. However, it seems odd, as the hon. Gentleman said, that a Member of Parliament will not have this power but a JP will. 
 You, Mr. Conway, and other members of the Committee know that the issues and complaints dealt with by the Bill are already often brought to Members of Parliament. We all receive correspondence in our mailbags week by week of the sort that would be appropriate to pass on for action by local authorities, but it seems a little bizarre that a Member of Parliament should have to go to a justice of the peace or his parish council to ask them to do something. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering, and I have no doubt that he will speak with his usual eloquence in response to the debate, but the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has merit in that regard. 
 We are all interested in delivering a system that enables the local authority to act appropriately whenever and wherever necessary. The more opportunity responsible people have to encourage the local authority to do so the better, although we do not want people ringing up on the off-chance to suggest that it should get involved unnecessarily. However, that is not the implication of the amendment. 
 The amendment is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill, it would improve the process and it would allow those with legitimate concerns to voice them to a range of local representatives, who could, in turn, pass them on to the relevant authority. In that sense, the hon. Gentleman made a persuasive case, which I hope the Minister will take on board. It could have been made better, as it was in amendment No. 182, with which the hon. Gentleman generously said that he agreed in large part. With equal generosity, therefore, let me say that I largely support his comments.

Sydney Chapman: I want to look at subsection (2) slightly differently. I was not on the Select Committee that examined the draft Bill, and I wonder why a JP or a parish council—as a
 corporation, presumably—should have the right to make a complaint when no one else does. Can a JP, of their own volition, suddenly decide that a matter should be looked into, or will that depend on people coming to them? If so, and the JP has to satisfy himself or herself about the issue, we shall have a quasi-legal system, which I am not so sure should apply in this case.
 Let me take another suggestion—MPs. I warn colleagues that if we accept the amendment—I do not oppose it, but I want to think it through—we may be flooded with applications to intercede to get properties inspected. If MPs are to have that responsibility—and it would be a responsibility—why not also local councillors? Indeed, they would be a better choice. 
 In one sense, this is a Christmas tree amendment, on which we can all hang the corporations and individuals that we think should have the right to trigger the mechanism in the Bill. I am not making a definitive statement but simply asking the Minister to explain why he chose justices of the peace and parish or community councils. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, we do not have such councils in the Greater London area. What was in the Government's mind in drafting subsection (2)?

Keith Hill: With your permission, Mr. Conway, before I respond to this short but interesting debate I want, in the spirit of practicality and constructiveness that has characterised our proceedings, to deal with two matters that arose during our first two sittings, on Tuesday. The Committee may recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) asked about compliance costs, while the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked about public access to inspections. This may not be the Committee's view, but I felt that I was unable to provide the full explanation that I would have liked. I therefore promised to return with a fuller explanation, and I want to fulfil that promise, although I shall not detain the Committee.
 Let me deal first with the costs of complying with the health and safety rating system and with the housing fitness standard. During Tuesday afternoon's sitting we discussed the costs associated with implementing part 1, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East drew attention to the relative costs of the health and safety rating system and the fitness standard, as set out in the Library research document. I promised to say more about the estimates of compliance costs for property owners and the operational costs for local authorities, which the hon. Member for Poole wanted me to clarify. 
 The House of Commons document reports the estimates given in the regulatory impact assessment published with the Bill. I stress that all the figures are approximate, because there has been no full-scale survey based on the new health and safety rating system. From our work on the fitness data in the 2001 English housing conditions survey, we estimated the annual total costs of works carried out under the health and safety rating system to remove category 1 hazards to be approximately £260 million. My hon. 
 Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East quoted that figure accurately. It compares with the figure of £470 million to comply with notices under the housing fitness regime, and represents an annual cost saving of approximately £220 million. In other words, the estimate in the regulatory impact assessment is based on the costs likely to ensue from obligatory interventions—that is, those that relate to category 1 hazards—rather than costs arising from all possible interventions. In other words, we can be certain only about the interventions that will automatically follow from the requirements in the Act. 
 Many of the other interventions are discretionary, which is why we could give only the figure of £260 million with certainty. We can be certain about that, but cannot be certain about the overall costs of other interventions, although we would expect other interventions in relation to category 2 hazards to follow in any circumstances.

John Hayes: This is a most helpful additional explanation of the costs. As the Minister suggested, those costs caused the Committee concern when we last sat. It does, however, throw the business of defining hazards into very sharp focus. I fully understand his comment about this being the estimate of category 1 hazards. As he will recall, we were concerned about that definition. I am also worried that category 2 hazards do not seem to have been costed, given that the new system expands the competence of the authority to consider a range of hazards and conditions that had not been taken into account until now. The Minister may be about to tell us that he has a notional figure for the overall cost. If he is, I apologise for anticipating him. If he is not, I hope that we will be given a fuller explanation of the whole cost later in our proceedings, because the document becomes questionable without it. This may be a great new system, but it is less impressive if we do not know what it will cost.

Keith Hill: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point to a certain extent. In the best of all possible worlds, it would be desirable to provide that overall cost, but the Government are limited to making estimates on the basis of what we know will axiomatically follow from the Bill's provisions. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we are not venturing into completely new territory. A large body of experience and practice in relation to the fitness standard has been built up over a large number of years, and we have fairly clear theories about the overall consequence of those interventions; the figure of £470 million has already been quoted. Our assumption is that a similar number of interventions will occur.
 I remind the hon. Gentleman that throughout our discussion of such matters we have emphasised the judgment-based and discretionary nature of the interventions. The consensus is that that is a strength of the new system. In a sense, it is more evidence-based and scientific, and offers clearer triggers to action than heretofore; nevertheless, it essentially relies on the experience and common sense of the inspectors. It is 
 not a fatal flaw in the argument that we cannot offer an overall figure for costs at this point. We will monitor the matter and make sure that the burdens are not excessive. At the same time, in the spirit of the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, we are anxious to ensure that there is no decline in proper inspection and in taking action to deal with problems.

John Hayes: I accept what the Minister says. It is not easy to estimate the costs because the system involves a whole new culture and requires a different approach. However, the Minister needs to understand that if we are not comparing like with like, we may estimate for half a system in the new figure, and for the whole system in the old figure. The current whole cost of carrying out fitness standards is—

Keith Hill: Four hundred and seventy million pounds.

John Hayes: Yes, the figure that the Minister has quoted. However, his estimate of the saving refers to only part of the cost. We may not be comparing like with like. I am worried that when we expand the system to take category 2 hazards into account, we may end up with a greater figure for costs. I am not necessarily against that: it might be desirable to expect people to spend more money to comply with the expanded range of hazards that the new system will define.
 No one should be under the illusion that we are definitely comparing like with like. The old fitness standards presented a total picture; category 1 hazards present a partial picture. I hope that during the course of our very long proceedings over the next several weeks the Minister will come up with some estimate, at least in notional terms, of the whole picture—the cost of category 2 hazards added to the cost of category 1 hazards. I appreciate that that will be difficult, but it does not seem impossible, given the enormous resources, skills and abilities available to him in his Department.

Keith Hill: I will consider the matter further and, if at all possible, I will respond again, but I offer absolutely no guarantee. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the strength of our proposal and the associated compliance costs are matters of certainty, whereas it is possible to argue that the old fitness standard was not. We should remember that, in contrast with the old fitness standard arrangements, the new system triggers actions by authorities in a much more specific and definite fashion. There was no certainty about the actions that would ensue from the old fitness standard or about the costs associated with it. We can now be much clearer. Nevertheless, I undertake to return to this point if a rational estimate can be made.
 We will continue to look into the matter of local authority costs, which was raised by the hon. Member for Poole, in collaboration with our colleagues in the Local Government Association. However, we have no evidence that operational costs under the new system will be higher than under the fitness standard. We accept that there will be some start-up costs and I have 
 said before that we estimate that they will be between £4 million to £5 million. I hope that that has assisted the Committee and has not unduly delayed proceedings. 
Mr. Hayes rose—

Keith Hill: I see that I have not entirely satisfied the Committee.

John Hayes: May I deal briefly with the second part of the Minister's comments? Later amendments will allow us to expand on our concerns about the matter. We know that there will be start-up costs covering training, adaptation and reskilling, but the Minister needs to consider the matter more fully. Given the complexity of the issue and the culture change that we all acknowledge will be involved, there could be ongoing costs. We need further explanation and better notional estimates. There will be more time to debate the matter, but I flag it up now because I do not want the Minister to conclude his remarks without appreciating that the rest of the Committee and local authorities are concerned that the estimates are not as accurate as they might be.

Keith Hill: As the hon. Gentleman has said, we shall have the opportunity to debate issues relating to start-up and training in due course. I am sure that we shall do so thoroughly.
 Let me turn now to public access to inspections. At our last sitting, the hon. Member for Poole referred to the reports of health and safety rating system inspections and asked what information would be in the public domain. When an environmental health officer goes into a property with score sheets and makes an assessment, will that be a public document? I have to confess my ignorance of the answer, but I will seek to shed light on it. 
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) noted, when part 1 of the Bill comes into force, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will apply to local housing authorities. Information will be made public unless it falls within one of the exemptions. It will be for the local housing authority to determine in each case whether any information requested in relation to a part 1 inspection is exempt. I do not expect an inspection record to be exempt. There might be circumstances in which a record has to be modified to prevent the disclosure of personal data, but that will be a matter for the local housing authority acting in accordance with data protection rules. I hope that that is satisfactory to the Committee.

Robert Syms: I thank the Minister for that clarification. I note that that might add a little to the local authority's costs. That might be a worthy thing to do, but as one with a local authority background who has recently discussed the costs to local authorities, I know that to make a document public in order to comply with freedom of information legislation—albeit totally appropriately—a system will have to be set up and an officer will have to exercise judgment, so there might be a cost implication.

Keith Hill: I understand the point, and it is possible that the hon. Gentleman is right. I imagine that systems exist for the disclosure of information, but this could add to such activities. We shall keep an eye on that. Although we are hesitant to trespass on any matter of local government finance, if the cost becomes a burden we will have to take that into consideration at the appropriate time when making allocations.
 I am grateful to you, Mr. Conway, and to the Committee for allowing me to make those explanations. It is efficient to clarify such matters in that way because it gives colleagues the opportunity to ask questions. 
 Clause 4 replaces, with modifications, section 606 of the Housing Act 1985. Subsection (1) requires a proper officer of a local authority to inspect a property or area if he receives an official complaint that a category 1 or category 2 hazard exists on residential premises, or that an area should be dealt with as a clearance area. Subsection (2) defines an official complaint as one made in writing by a justice of the peace or by a parish or community council. 
 That issue has already been the subject of some discussion by the Committee. The right to have a complaint investigated is not restricted to a justice of the peace or to a parish or community council. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) asks why the provisions have been included. The reason is that they were introduced in previous legislation and, as hon. Members have mentioned more than once, the Select Committee recommended that they be included in the Bill. We have acceded to that request. However, I assure the Committee that it would be quite wrong to imagine that the inclusion of magistrates and parish or community councils in the Bill means that local authorities are likely to be unresponsive to complaints about the condition of properties. 
 Subsection (3) imposes an additional duty on an authority to inspect residential premises if, either following a review under clause 3 or for some other reason, it considers that appropriate to determine whether a category 1 or category 2 hazard exists on the premises. Subsections (4) and (5) provide for regulations to prescribe the manner in which an inspection of premises under subsection (1) or (3) is to be carried out and how the hazards in the premises are to be assessed. The purpose of the provisions is to provide that the inspection and the hazard assessment are carried out in accordance with the proposed health and safety rating system. 
 Subsection (6) imposes a duty on the proper officer of the local authority to make a written report to the authority without delay if he believes that a category 1 hazard exists on the premises inspected, or that the area inspected should be dealt with as a clearance area. Subsection (7) requires the authority to consider such a report as soon as possible. 
 The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton would extend subsection (2) to allow a complaint to a local authority by the local Member of Parliament, local higher education establishments and the local primary care trust. The 
 hon. Gentleman anticipated my response, which is that I am reluctant to yield on the amendment, because I do not want to add new burdens to local authorities. We need to be careful about requiring authorities to act on complaints rather than allowing them to use their discretion to do so. We should not divert authorities or have them investigate cases unnecessarily. That is not a pejorative observation about the quality of representations from Members of Parliament or worthy bodies. However, there must be an element of discretion regarding the complaints that local authorities pursue. The experience of the officers will be that some of those complaints are likely to be vexatious or frivolous, so there has to be a limit. 
Mr. Hayes rose—

Keith Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I should like to pursue the argument. Then we shall have the opportunity for discussion.
 I remind the Committee what I said about subsection (3). That provision would have the effect of requiring authorities, in response to what might be somewhat pejoratively described as an unofficial complaint, to arrange for an inspection to be conducted if that was considered appropriate. As I have said, in my experience, authorities generally investigate complaints as a matter of policy, unless they have reason to think that a complaint is vexatious or unreasonable. I must say, in an unusual burst of modesty, that I am not sure whether I, as a Member of Parliament, have the special experience in these matters that would add weight to any complaint that I might make. Of course, other members of the Committee are more expert than I. 
 In response to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, let me make it absolutely clear that it is not necessary for a Member to refer a case through a magistrate, or a parish or community council. As he rightly said, in London we know not of such creatures in any circumstances. The same is true in most major urban areas. To impose on authorities a new statutory burden along the lines set out in the amendment would not be particularly helpful. We can trust them to exercise sensible discretion. To summarise the immortal words of Peel in the Tamworth Manifesto: if it ain't broke, don't mend it. 
 It is clear from our exchanges that there is little evidence that makes a case for the amendment. When producing legislation, Government must not act on theory or speculation, but on evidence. Without such evidence, I am reluctant to support the amendment, and I urge the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to withdraw it.

Matthew Green: As the Minister takes that view, will he reassure the Committee regarding the following hypothetical case, which may arise if the amendment is not passed? Suppose that a Member complained to his local authority about a dangerous property, but the local authority did nothing and someone was injured in the property, which turned out to contain a category 1 hazard. In
 such a case, the council would almost certainly be liable on the grounds that it had been warned about the property but had failed to do anything about it.

Keith Hill: I turn to those with greater legal experience than I have in such matters, but I am pretty confident that the council would be liable in those circumstances—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in that respect. One would expect such neglect to have serious consequences, but one would expect the same in the event of a serious and earnest complaint from any source. It would be quite wrong to say that a complaint should be neglected if it is from a source other than a JP, a parish or community council, an MP, a primary care trust or a college. We expect all complaints to be taken seriously unless the local authority, judging by its experience, believes the complaint to be from a vexatious or frivolous source.

John Hayes: It is early, but this morning the Minister seems like a good racehorse having a bad run. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, on the one hand he tells us that of course an MP's complaint would be taken seriously and of course the local authority would ''as a matter of policy''—his words—investigate a serious complaint, but on the other hand he tells us that, as an MP himself, he doubts whether any MP would have the expertise to make a complaint. He tells us that the local authority would take seriously both unofficial and official complaints and that is why he rejects the amendment, yet he tells us also that we must not overburden local authorities because otherwise they will have too many complaints to handle.
 We need some clarity. The truth is that it would have been better if the Minister had listed either everyone or no one in the Bill. If no one were listed, this debate would not have occurred. The Bill could have made some general remark about serious complaints being investigated, or about complaints being channelled through a local authority that would have discretionary powers. However, because the Bills refers to parish and community councils and JPs, the Minister—to paraphrase his hero, Ernest Bevin—has opened a Pandora's box from which a hornet's nest has emerged. 
 If the Minister cannot be clearer, I will be surprised if we do not return to this issue at a later stage to demand greater clarity. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, have better runs and will win other races in the course of the day's proceedings.

Keith Hill: Well, we are in metaphorical mode. To pursue the equine analogy and the theme of horse racing, the hon. Gentleman is really champing at the bit this morning. He has obviously had something stimulating for breakfast. For the purposes of clarification, I did not say that Members of Parliament would not have expertise in the matters we are discussing; I said that I see no particular reason why Members of Parliament qua Members of Parliament should automatically have greater expertise in these issues, and therefore no reason why their representations should be given greater weight than those of other citizens.
 I concede the point this far: characteristically, constituents come to MPs as a last resort, but that is not always the case. The more we become glorified councillors and local community figures, the more constituents are inclined to come to us for quite run-of-the-mill matters, if I may describe them thus. I represent a constituency only four miles from Westminster, so it is not costly for a constituent to pick up the phone and call me. I have picked up the phone in my office in the House of Commons to be informed that a constituent's window got broken that morning and to be asked what I was going to do about it. 
 We come across that sort of thing, but on the whole people come to us if they have had a bad experience. If there has been a failure to respond, we would make a forceful representation, and we would certainly expect the force of that representation to be responded to. I would expect complaints about the condition of a property and behaviour to be responded to in all circumstances. There has been no evidence adduced to the Committee to suggest that that is not so and that we need belt and braces in addition to JPs and parish and community councils. That, presumably, is what moved the Select Committee to call for their inclusion in the Bill, together with what already appears there. I say again: if it ain't broke, don't mend it.

Sydney Chapman: I shall be brief. As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my question as to why JPs and parish councils are mentioned. As I understand it, parts of the Bill replace parts of the Housing Act 1985. He said that subsection (2) is in the 1985 Act, and that the Select Committee, having looked at the draft Bill, recommended that it stay in legislation. For me, that is an entirely satisfactory explanation.
 I do not expect the Minister to answer now, but it would be interesting to know to what degree that subsection has been activated in the past 18 years. It may be that nobody has gone to a JP, or that a JP has never applied that subsection. It may also be that neither a parish council nor a parish community have done so. If the Committee could be given some indication of how the subsection has been used—not now, but later in the proceedings—that would be helpful. 
 I say that for one good reason: we change legislation to add something to the statute book, but in so doing we have the opportunity also to cut out the extraneous elements of old legislation, especially in the case of complex and massive pieces of legislation such as this, which we want to make as short as possible—or at least not unnecessarily long.

Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his response. We will consider the question of references from JPs and parish and community councils to establish whether there are any data. If there are, I will report back to the Committee. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to
 reduce regulation where possible, and I am delighted to say that towards the end of part 1 there are a number of deregulatory clauses.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the comments made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. That information would be useful. I suspect that the powers have been used in few cases, and I think that the same suspicion lay behind the hon. Gentleman's comments. If that is the case, it would strengthen the argument for the approach suggested in amendment No. 220. Such information is the evidence that the Minister was seeking. He said that it did not exist, but he does not know that, because he has not looked for it. He has not answered the question. When he finds the answer, he may want to return to that matter. To make that easier, I suggest that a way forward may be to require local authorities to give due consideration to representations from a Member of Parliament, a primary care trust or a JP, rather than using the official complaint processes.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has hit on a valuable point. I wonder whether he agrees with me that the Minister was saying that, in effect, there is little difference between an official and an unofficial complaint, and that although an official complaint is defined in the Bill, an unofficial complaint from a responsible person—an MP or a local councillor, for example—would probably be treated in a similar manner. That adds weight to the hon. Gentleman's point, because the Minister has conceded that official complaints have little status.

Edward Davey: Indeed—I was coming to that point. Subsection (3)(b) explains what the local authority's thought process would be. It states
 ''If, in the case of any residential premises in the district of a local housing authority. . . as the result of a review under section 3 or for any other reason a local housing authority consider that it would be appropriate for an inspection of those premises to be carried out'' 
and so on. The key phrase is 
''or for any other reason''. 
That, I think, is what the Bill is referring to in respect of a representation from a Member of Parliament or a member of the public. However, the local authority has no duty to consider such a representation. It may be a small point, but if the local authority had lost something, or if it was not cutting the mustard, it might say that a representation was inappropriate without having considered it. The phrasing of subsection (3)(b) provides too easy a let-out. 
 My amendment is not about imposing extra regulations, duties or responsibilities, but about making sure that local authorities do what the Minister asks of them. Surely, he wants to ensure that local authorities consider representations from a Member of Parliament, or a justice of the peace, or anyone else. All we want is to ensure that the local housing authority gives proper weight to representations. That occurs elsewhere in legislation, particularly in relation to duties that fall to Secretaries of State. They are often asked to consider representations, reports and so forth. I wonder 
 whether that would strike a better balance between the official complaint procedure and what is in subsection (3).

Keith Hill: I shall be brief, because we have given the issue a good thrashing. We expect local authorities to respond to complaints from all sources and to take them seriously. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) asked about liability. He is right that the local authority must reasonably decide whether to inspect; if it unreasonably fails to do so, it could be liable. That adds further force to the local authority's need to be responsive to complaints.
 My final observation is that if the Government had clear evidence that the system was failing, we would act. However, there is no evidence of widespread failure to respond on those issues. For that reason, we do not feel the need to go further than in the Bill.

Edward Davey: As the Minister said, we have given the issue a thrashing, but we may feel the need to return to it. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Robert Syms: I beg to move amendment No. 183, in
clause 4, page 4, line 40, leave out
 'the manner in which, and'.
 There are still a few issues that we must thrash out. This is a probing amendment: we are mainly just messing about with the Minister's wording so that we can have a debate. 
 The amendment addresses two issues. First, a number of landlords and the Council of Mortgage Lenders have raised concerns about the fact that landlords who have properties in different local authority districts have to deal with different regimes. Therefore, they want clear guidance so that the systems are similar and they know how to operate them in different areas. If the regulations are drawn up in such a way that regimes are substantially different, that will cause problems. 
 The second issue concerns the need to tease out the difference between an official complaint and the local authority considering an inspection for any other reason. Presumably, when guidance is laid down, an official complaint would mean that the local authority would have to inspect, and the discretionary side of things would mean that it would consider whether to inspect if someone who was not a JP or in one of the other categories phoned up and said, ''There is a problem here.'' Once one has got past that, presumably the system would be the same for any inspection, whether or not it were as a result of an official complaint or just a normal inspection by the housing authority. Will the guidance specify a different procedure for those two types of complaints, or are they to be treated as one? Common sense would dictate that once a local authority decided to look at a property the system would be the same whether the complaint was official or discretionary. 
 When inspections take place, will they be comprehensive? If there is a specific complaint—about wiring, for instance—will the inspector go through all 29 elements on the score card, or will they go into the building for 15 minutes to examine the specific complaint, such as whether there is a wiring problem? The property might have been comprehensively inspected a month earlier, which would be a good reason for them not having to go through all 29 facets of the inspection. I am trying to tease out how much discretion authorities will have when they undertake inspections. If quite a lot of discretion is allowed, there might be a temptation when a fault is found to do a full inspection because there might be other faults. 
 There must be conformity and uniformity between the regimes of local authorities, but an official inspection by their environmental health officers could be anything from a 10-minute visit to a two-hour ''painting of the kerbs'' inspection in which they go from A to Z and do everything fully and comprehensively. The costs to a local authority, and the potential costs to the landlord, could be substantial: that would depend on how heavy-handed the inspection regime is. How can we have both conformity and a degree of flexibility so that inspectors can use their common sense? We do not want somebody to have to go into a property with all the forms and go through a set procedure for however many hours that may take to ensure that everything is properly done every time that a complaint is made. 
 The fact that a tenant might pull out some wiring if they have an issue with their landlord must be taken into account. There might be a disagreement over rent, or about attitude. It is not unknown for tenants occasionally to do something to a property if they are in conflict with the landlord. If we are not careful, we will end up with an inspection regime in which people regularly turn up to examine faulty wiring or something else that has been caused by criminal damage. How heavy-handed and how practical would it be to draw up guidance and regulations that make clear the responsibilities of landlords who have properties in different districts?

Edward Davey: The amendment is useful because it enables the Committee to think about the regulations that the Government are required to lay under subsection (5) on how inspections are to be made. To my knowledge—I hope that I have not missed papers sent to me by the Government—we have not seen those regulations yet. Will the Minister say when we will get sight of them, or refer me to the relevant published document that I have failed to read?
 I have a specific point about what the regulations ought to cover. It relates to something that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health brought to my attention. How will samples be gathered, and will an environmental health officer have the power to take samples? The samples might be of mould, to discover its potential to damage health, or of air samples, in order to examine ventilation—or of other things that I have not thought of or would not wish to consider this morning. Will the Minister make it clear 
 whether under the regulations EHOs will be given the power to take those samples, and that the landlord will not be able to prevent those samples being taken?

Sydney Chapman: As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has raised very specific points, and I am grateful to him for that. The amendment would remove the phrase ''the manner in which''. I fail to understand why that phrase is necessary given that it is immediately followed by
''the extent to which, premises are to be inspected under subsection (1) or (3)''.
 Perhaps the Minister could explain what is covered by ''the manner in which'' but not covered by ''the extent'', particularly given paragraph (b), which states: 
''the manner in which the assessment of hazards is to be carried out.'' 
I am not saying that the provision should read ''the extent to which the assessment of hazards should be carried out'', but I fail to see why the phrase is necessary in clause 4(5)(a). Beware the politician on a crusade, but I have crusaded over a number of years to keep legislation as simple as possible. This is an opportunity to remove at least one small phrase from this massive Bill.

Keith Hill: I shall respond first to the hon. Gentleman. I explained the purpose and effect of the clause when we debated the previous amendment.
 The amendment would prevent regulations from prescribing the manner in which premises are to be inspected. The objection to prescribing the manner of inspections—the way in which they are carried out—is not clear to me. The regulations under clause 4(4) are those also referred to in clause 2. Regulations under clause 2 will prescribe the method and therefore the manner of the inspections. That is why that phraseology appears. 
 I shall deal with the other speeches in reverse order, turning first to that of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. He asked about regulations. I detected a slight note of complaint about the lack of availability. It is true that we have not circulated the draft regulations among Committee members. However, on 19 January we circulated a very hefty document, in which we spelled out the policy intent behind the regulations. As and when it is appropriate, we will make the draft regulations available. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked about the power to take samples and what would happen in the event of a landlord seeking to prevent the taking of those samples. There are powers later in the Bill to deal with failure on the part of various persons to co-operate with the inspector or to permit access, and specifically on the issue of samples, we have tabled an amendment to clause 177, which I am sure he will want to consider carefully. In broad terms, regulations will derive from version 2. That will be available in final form later this year, along with the draft enforcement guidance documents that are already available to the Committee in draft form. 
 I recognise that the amendment is a probing one. The hon. Member for Poole raised anxieties that there might be different regimes in different districts. It is very important that there should be uniformity in the application of the provisions. We will try to ensure uniformity of approach through guidance, in the regulatory framework set out in regulations, and by the process of training. 
 As I shall discuss later, if we have time to debate the relevant amendments, to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred, the draft versions of the health and safety rating system have been widely available for a long time now. We are confident that there is already a high level of awareness among environmental health inspectors. That awareness will be reinforced by a training system and various other forms of information aimed at bringing about uniformity. The hon. Gentleman raised an important question on behalf of various stakeholders. I am grateful, but I assure him that we are aware of its importance. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked about official complaints. I am beginning to regret the open-mindedness with which the Government approached the recommendations of the Select Committee, specifically on the issue of magistrates and parish and community councils. It has seemed to me to give rise to perhaps more heat than is justified by the provisions. However, let me say again that the procedure to be adopted by inspectors will be the same regardless of the source of the complaint.

John Hayes: Will the Minister allow me?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman has made an intervention from, as they say, a sedentary position.

John Hayes: I do apologise, Mr. Conway.
 To be absolutely clear, are we saying that, as I suggested, equal weight will be given to official and unofficial complaints?

Keith Hill: To adopt another sporting metaphor, that is a hole in one. The hon. Gentleman is correct.
 The hon. Member for Poole asked whether the inspection would be restricted to the specific complaint. It could go beyond it if there were reasonable grounds. If an inspector went to premises in response to a complaint about live wires and found that a wall was in imminent danger of collapse, it would be absurd not to respond to that. 
 On the other hand, we attach importance to the idea that excessive impositions should not be placed on landlords. There will be no requirement for an environmental health officer to keep reinspecting premises. It is a matter for the environmental health officer's discretion. We shall deal with that in guidance, but we are eager to avoid any suspicion or suggestion that EHOs or surveyors should be in the habit of going on fishing expeditions. I hope that those undertakings will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Robert Syms: Yes; the Minister has gone a long way towards reassuring me on the concerns that I raised.
 One other small point arises about official or other complaints. Presumably figures will have to be collected on official complaints. If a JP phoned a housing authority and said, ''I believe there's a problem with some housing in multiple occupation'', would the authority not be tempted to say, ''Don't make it official, Fred. We'll go and inspect it''? I raise the issue because it has just crossed my mind—[Laughter.] Would a housing authority want lots of official complaints? I gave the example of HMOs, which might be in the area that the authority was supposed to inspect, but the overall figures for official complaints might bear no relation to the state of housing in the area because of the way in which local people use the complaints procedure. Anyway, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Category 1 hazards: general duty to take enforcement action

Amendment made: No. 5, in 
clause 5, page 5, line 15, at end insert— 
 '(ca) taking emergency remedial action under section (Emergency remedial action); 
 (cb) making an emergency prohibition order under section (Emergency prohibition orders);'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Category 1 hazards: how duty under section 5 operates in certain cases

Amendment made: No. 6, in 
clause 6, page 5, line 40, leave out 
 'paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of' 
 and insert 'provisions contained in'.—[Keith Hill.]

Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I am sorry to detain the Committee. Amendment No. 5 may only have been a technical amendment, but there is no mention of it or of the amendments to clause 6 on my selection list.

Derek Conway: I promise you that these things are confusing for everyone, including me. The selection list, which the Clerks Department issues at each sitting, shows hon. Members which amendments have been selected for discussion; it does not show those that have not been selected. The Chairman and the Clerk, however, are guided by the amendment paper. That may seem confusing, but the Minister formally moved amendments Nos. 5 and 6, and will now formally move amendment No. 7, because the Committee debated them earlier. Once we reach the place in the Bill to which such amendments apply, the
 Minister need only move them formally. I accept that that is extraordinarily confusing, but it is no doubt the historical and logical way to do things.
 Amendment made: No. 7, in 
clause 6, page 6, line 4, at end insert—
 '(2A) In the case of paragraph (ca) of that subsection, the authority may regard the taking of emergency remedial action under section (Emergency remedial action) followed by the service of an improvement notice under section 9 as a single course of action.
 (2B) In the case of paragraph (cb) of that subsection, the authority may regard the making of an emergency prohibition order under section (Emergency prohibition orders) followed by the service of a prohibition order under section 18 as a single course of action.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Category 2 hazards: powers to take enforcement action

Keith Hill: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in
clause 7, page 6, line 21, leave out 'and'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 9.

Keith Hill: In the light of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, it is important that I explain the amendments.
 In response to a category 2 hazard, a local housing authority may select the appropriate enforcement action from the options in subsection (2). It may serve an improvement notice under clause 10, make a prohibition order under clause 19, serve a hazard awareness notice under clause 27 or make a demolition order under section 265(3) or (4) of the Housing Act 1985, as substituted by clause 38. 
 Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9 correct an omission from the clause by adding to the list of possible enforcement options the declaration of a clearance area under section 289(2ZB) of the Housing Act 1985, as substituted by clause 39. The amendments do not in themselves add new powers, because the purpose of clause 7(2) is to summarise the powers provided in part 1 of the Bill and in the Housing Act 1985. 
 Those options, as amended, are essentially the same as those provided by clause 5 in respect of category 1 hazards, except that making a demolition order and declaring a clearance area are available as responses to category 2 hazards only in circumstances to be specified or described in an order made by the Secretary of State under section 265(3)(c) or (4)(c), or section 289(2ZB) of the 1985 Act. 
 Subsection (3) provides that, when a course of action has not proved satisfactory, the authority may take the same course or a different course of action. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 9, in 
clause 7, page 6, line 23, at end insert 
 'and 
 (e) section 289(2ZB) of that Act (power to make a slum clearance declaration).'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Clause Guidance about inspections and enforcement action

Robert Syms: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in
clause 8, page 6, line 32, leave out 'may' and insert 'will'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 188, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 33, leave out 'about exercising' and insert 'on'. 
Amendment No. 173, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 39, at end add— 
 '(d) their functions in relation to fire safety legislation and in particular the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in properties to which Part 2 applies.'. 
Amendment No. 189, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 39, at end add— 
 '(d) the new qualifications and training required by Environmental Health Officers to undertake these functions. 
 (e) the nature and expenditure of time required so that these functions may be considered to have been properly fulfilled. 
 (f) the circumstances in which they may be required to compensate landlords for costs incurred in the carrying out of their functions. 
 (g) their functions in relation to fire safety legislation and in particular consideration be given to the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in HMOs'. 
Amendment No. 246, in 
clause 20, page 14, line 3, at end insert— 
 '(2A) The local authority may seek the guidance of the appropriate national authority on any of the requirements specified in (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (2)'.

Robert Syms: We seem to be cantering through the Bill. The thrust of our amendments is to tease out a little more about guidance for the enforcement and inspection regime. We also want to know the likely costs for local government.
 Subsection (1) states: 
 ''The appropriate national authority may give guidance''. 
It is clear that guidance does not need to be given, which is why we suggest in amendment No. 187 that it ''will'' give guidance. I wonder whether it would be nice to give the National Assembly for Wales the choice; I presume that when the clause talks of a national authority it must mean either the Government or the Assembly. 
 The guts of what we wish to discuss come in amendment No. 189, which would add paragraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g). Paragraph (d) would make it transparent what training were expected. It is clear that roles to be undertaken under the new system will 
 require training. The briefing paper suggests that environmental health officers may need up to five days' training. That might vary, but one ought to be specific about what is required of local authorities. 
 Paragraph (e) is proposed because certain specifications are expected of local authorities. Paragraphs (f) and (g) also add to the guidance. We are trying to expand the degree of guidance needed so that the time and cost implications for local authorities are much clearer and more quantifiable. 
 The Opposition's general theme is to try to ensure that the costs of the new system to local government are fully compensated for. It is therefore important that central Government gives local government specific guidance so that it is much easier to quantify its duties. Legislation sometimes states that local authorities ''shall'' do something, and some authorities, which are gold-plated, do it very well, while others do it less well. We want the situation to be clear so that authorities know what the costs are and the Local Government Association can make representations to the Government for proper compensation. 
 Unless the Minister reassures us fully, we may be minded, at an appropriate point and with your indulgence, Mr. Conway, to press amendment No. 189 to a Division.

Brian Iddon: Amendment No. 173, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, relates to fire sprinklers in HMOs. Its purpose is to make the link between HMOs, which are covered mainly in part 2, and an effective hazard remedy with statutory guidance on part 1. It draws attention to the significant contribution that sprinklers can make to ensure a safe HMO environment. I am sure that it will have cross-party support because on Second Reading the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) referred to the tragic deaths of two brothers who lived in an HMO. The hon. Member for Wealden took a delegation to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who signalled that the Government were paying significant attention to the amendment. I, too, spoke about sprinklers on Second Reading.
 Some 35 per cent. of all fire deaths and 39 per cent. of all fire injuries occur in HMOs. In 2001, there were more than 22,500 fires in HMOs, which resulted in 116 deaths and more than 4,700 injuries. Those are significant statistics, as I am sure Members will agree. Between 1991 and 2001, injuries caused by domestic fires increased by 19 per cent. In 2001, the total was 13,881. The total cost of residential fires, including fires in HMOs, stands at the record figure of £1.9 billion. The fire risk is therefore significant, and my amendment, if it is accepted, would go some way to addressing that obvious danger to the community. I believe, as do many Members, that sprinklers are an effective way of reducing the personal injury, physical damage, grief and financial hardship caused by fires. 
 Despite what I have said, the cost of installing sprinklers is significant, but I have learned that landlords and others can greatly offset the cost of installation against the reduction in insurance premiums. Insurance premiums continue to rise because of the risks that I have described, but I stress that insurance costs should stabilise, if not go down, if we can halt the rise in fire deaths in HMOs. 
 There are many myths about sprinklers. In Hollywood films, when there is a fire in a building, including in a domestic one, sprinklers go off all over the building. That is a myth. Sprinklers do not go off all over the building. Sprinkler technology goes back 100 years and is very high-tech today. If a fire starts in a room in which there is a sprinkler, only the sprinkler head in that room will be activated. As the fire travels through the premises, the rest of the sprinkler heads of the sprinkler system will be activated in turn. 
 Another myth about sprinklers is that they cause huge damage to premises, including domestic premises, which I am discussing. The amount of water from a sprinkler head needed to extinguish a fire is far less than that which is used when the fire brigade arrives and pumps large volumes into the premises. Fire sprinklers not only save lives but probably cause significantly less damage than the fire brigade can cause when it arrives on the scene.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making a convincing case. His argument will be made more convincing if he accepts my suggestion to link it to the new draft guidance, which refers to the hazard of fire. Shockingly, although the incidence of fire is relatively small, the possible health outcomes are profoundly worrying, particularly in older properties and for older occupants. That is made clear in the table on page 195 of the guidance, which makes a strong case in support of his amendment.

Brian Iddon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, which I fully accept.
 Finally, I remind the Minister that in 1997 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, then the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, commissioned research by Entec Ltd. That research reported that 52 per cent. of HMO fire deaths occurred in buildings that were three or more storeys high, even though 16.5 per cent. of households lived in such buildings. A tenant living in a bedsit house of three or more storeys is almost 17 times more likely to be killed in a fire than an adult living in a similar, single-occupancy house. The amendment is a good one, and I hope that the Minister is minded to accept its spirit, if not its detail.

Edward Davey: I support all the amendments in the group. The amendments tabled by the Conservative Front Benchers are excellent and the amendment on fire sprinklers tabled by the hon. Members for Bolton, South-East and for Stafford deserve the Committee's support. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East raised serious issues about fire sprinklers, on which the Government need to move. On Monday we shall no doubt have that debate on Second Reading of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill, through which the
 Government seek to adopt a more preventive approach. The hon. Gentleman made a serious contribution to explaining why they should. I end by saying that Okocha was on fire last night and Bolton did very well.

Keith Hill: The clause enables the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly in Wales to give guidance to local housing authorities on the exercise of their functions under part 1. I hope that that addresses the concerns of the hon. Member for Poole. Such guidance will broadly fall into two categories: how a property is to be inspected and hazards are to be assessed using the housing health and safety rating system; and how authorities should apply the enforcement duties under powers provided in part 1 once they have assessed a hazard. Those relate to the use of improvement notices, prohibition orders, hazard awareness notices, demolition orders and clearance, and also to the use of the emergency measures that have been added to the Bill by Government amendments.
 Amendment No. 187 would place the appropriate national authority under a duty to give guidance rather than giving it the power to do so. The Committee need have no anxiety about that; I am more than willing to issue guidance. Indeed, I regard it as essential for local authorities to have clear guidance if they are to carry out their functions effectively. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the relevant national authority to be under a duty to give guidance. 
 Although the hon. Member for Poole is eminently reasonable in his style and in the character of his speeches, I am very disappointed by amendment No. 188, which states: 
 ''Leave out 'about exercising' and insert 'on'''. 
That strikes me as just a tad pedantic. Perhaps he would like local authorities to have an academic dissertation on the philosophy of housing conditions rather than a usable document that will be of help to them in the practical business of carrying out their functions. He should get real. 
 Amendment No. 189 adds to the topics on which guidance may be given. It appears to reflect some concern about the ability of authorities to adapt to the health and safety rating system and the new enforcement regime. The reference to fire safety, which overlaps with that in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—amendment No. 173, so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East—indicates a different concern about the way in which the health and safety rating system deals with fire safety issues. I shall return to fire safety after I have addressed the other matters dealt with in amendment No. 189. 
 It is self-evident that a local authority has to ensure that it can carry out its functions. In order to do so, it has to employ officers who are capable of doing a particular job. Fortunately, authorities already have qualified professional officers: environmental health officers. I accept that the health and safety rating system is new and that officers will need familiarisation. However, I have no reason to think 
 that they are likely to need new qualifications, as set out in the amendment. I am slightly curious about the matter, although I do not want to press it. 
 Version 1 of the health and safety rating system was issued in July 2000 to enable local authorities and the profession to familiarise themselves with its principles. There were some operational difficulties with version 1 and we have worked hard to iron them out. However, there is no fundamental difference of principle between versions 1 and 2. That being so, it does the profession no favours to suggest that those of its members who have inspected numerous properties in order to assess fitness now need new qualifications in order to carry out hazard assessments—assessments that will be backed up with comprehensive guidance and, if authorities so choose, information technology support. 
 The new subsection (1)(e) that amendment No. 189 would insert into clause 8 seems to be an attempt to write a regulatory impact assessment into the guidance. The guidance on the use of enforcement tools cannot be the place for a regulatory impact assessment. Inspections are likely to vary considerably in the length of time that they take, both in the field and back in the office. 
 The computer program, which will be part of version 2 of the health and safety rating system, should enable inspectors to save time by entering data as they carry out the inspection. We envisage that many authorities will have one of those devices that gas and electricity meter inspectors use to enter data on the spot, after which time that is recorded and the calculations made. 
 As for the proposed new subsection (1)(f) under amendment No. 189, it is not clear in what circumstances authorities may need to compensate landlords. Landlords will have a right to appeal against the improvement notices and prohibition orders for which the Bill provides before they take effect. However, in the case of emergency measures added to the Bill by the Government's amendments after the measures have been taken, compensation may well be the outcome of an appeal in such cases. 
 I suggest that compensation should be dealt with on appeal. I cannot agree that it should be a matter for Government guidance under clause 8 or, indeed, that there should be a presumption of compensation for a landlord who has kept his tenancy conditions so hazardous that a local authority felt it had no option but to take enforcement action. Before leaving the general matter of guidance, I wish to remind the Committee that one of the documents that we published last month and which has been made available to the Committee is a consultation document inviting comments on the draft guidance. We take the consultation exercise seriously. We have widely distributed the draft and have invited comments by 26 March. We are preparing non-statutory guidance for landlords. Responsible landlords will want to work alongside local authorities from a position of mutual 
 understanding and the landlord guidance will, we hope, help to achieve that. We shall be consulting on such matters in due course. 
 I turn to amendment No. 173 and the aspect of amendment No. 189 that deals with fire safety. I thought, as ever, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East spoke powerfully. He put a good case about the fire risk in HMOs. Indeed, it is on the basis of his analysis that we are bringing forward our proposals for HMO mandatory licensing, especially with regard to occupied HMOs with three storeys, where the greatest fire risk is located. I accept the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's analysis of fire in HMOs. Fire risk is one of the 29 hazards that are dealt with by the health and safety rating system. It is an important hazard and I assure members of the Committee that the guidance will certainly deal with the handling of fire hazards. 
 I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I do not believe that it is necessary to single out fire safety on the face of the Bill. Perhaps I should say something about the way in which local authorities are being asked to deal with hazards. The Committee now has a comprehensive understanding of such matters in the light of—it says here—my very clear exposition at our previous sitting. However, we worked on the matter together and we developed a common understanding of such matters. 
 I shall recap briefly. When inspecting the property, the inspector asks, ''What is the likelihood of an incident taking place—for example, the risk of an outbreak of fire—and what harm will be caused, taking account of other factors, such as the precautions that have been taken in the property and the means of escape?'' Clearly, the same severity of harm—death or serious injury—can arise from a high risk of fire as from a fall or an electrical hazard. We want local authorities to prioritise action against all serious hazards, whatever their profile. We will emphasise that in the enforcement guidance that we will issue to authorities, which will also include advice on how housing authorities can work with fire authorities to ensure that housing and fire-safety legislation work effectively. 
 Where an authority has assessed a serious category 1 hazard it will have a duty, under clause 5, to take appropriate enforcement action. Should it serve an improvement notice under clause 9, the action taken by the owner or landlord must—as a minimum—ensure that the hazard ceases to be a category 1 hazard. We do not prescribe specific means of dealing with hazards, because that would be inconsistent with the risk assessment system. However, the technical guidance on fire hazards that we have issued under this clause will point to the greater risk of fire in multiply occupied buildings. It will also say that for any such building there should be adequate fire protection, including means of escape, appropriate fire detection and alarm systems and, where appropriate, emergency lighting and sprinkler systems or other firefighting equipment. That will appear in the guidance. We will expect inspectors to enforce along those lines where a hazard is identified. 
 I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and of the Committee to the requirements of the proposals in part 2 on mandatory licensing of HMOs—specifically, that there should be an annual return by the landlord of an HMO regarding proper certification of gas, electrical appliances and smoke alarms. That is set out in schedule 4.

Brian Iddon: Does my right hon. Friend envisage a situation whereby there had been a serious fire in an HMO, and the local authority had advised the landlord to fit sprinklers to prevent any further deaths in that property and they had not done so? Does he envisage a situation in which the local authority would have the right to take enforcement action to fit a sprinkler in such a property if the landlord had refused to accept guidance?
 Keith Hill: The answer to that is yes. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. I say to him again that, of course, where an inspector makes such requirements we would expect the landlord to respond. We will not require authorities to have sprinklers in all HMOs, but it will be appropriate to fit them where the risk justifies it. Although the technical guidance may be difficult to digest and look difficult to read, it could not be clearer about that requirement.

John Hayes: Will the Minister go as far as to say that the guidance will recommend smoke alarms, which are inexpensive and easy to fit, as a matter of course in those high-risk properties?

Keith Hill: No, I do not think that I am in a position to include them as a matter of course. However, certification for mandatory HMO licensing will require evidence that smoke alarms are in place; that is already in the Bill.
 We are talking about the generality of stock. Part 1 begins by stating that local authorities have a responsibility for the good condition of all stock in their district. We must think about the impact of such a crime, and the burdens on local authorities and home owners. It is for those reasons that I cannot make such an undertaking. 
 Government new clause 3 requires local housing authorities to consult fire authorities before taking enforcement action under part 1 in HMOs or in the common parts of a building containing one or more flats. That is the type of property where fire risks are highest. 
 Amendment No. 246 would enable a local authority to seek guidance on the mandatory contents of prohibition orders. Our guidance will be so comprehensive and splendid that it will be hard to envisage an authority seeking anything more. More seriously, it is not for the Government to tell local authorities what to do in particular cases. I am sure that the Committee broadly shares that sentiment. 
 For all those reasons, I beg the hon. Member for Poole to withdraw his amendment, and I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East not to press the amendment on which he spoke.

Robert Syms: The Government need to be pressed on these matters—and certainly with regard to amendment No. 189. But first, as the Minister gave a perfect, wonderful and excellent explanation in the current discussion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 187.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 10, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 37, leave out second 'or' and insert— 
 '(ba) their functions under Chapter 2A in relation to emergency remedial action and emergency prohibition orders, or'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Amendment proposed: No. 189, in 
 clause 8, page 6, line 39, at end add— 
 '(d) the new qualifications and training required by Environmental Health Officers to undertake these functions. 
 (e) the nature and expenditure of time required so that these functions may be considered to have been properly fulfilled. 
 (f) the circumstances in which they may be required to compensate landlords for costs incurred in the carrying out of their functions. 
 (g) their functions in relation to fire safety legislation and in particular consideration be given to the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in HMOs'.—[Mr. Syms.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Improvement notices relating to category 1 hazards: duty of authority to serve notice

Edward Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 222, in
clause 9, page 7, line 33, at end insert—
 '(2A) An improvement notice under this section may be served on any occupants of the residential premises concerned, but only to require such occupants not to obstruct or impede the completion of any remedial action required in a related improvement notice for those premises.'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 223, in 
clause 9, page 8, line 13, at end insert— 
 '(5A) The improvement notice may require any remedial action that would render the property uninhabitable only to be taken after the occupants have been informed and had the opportunity to find alternative accommodation.'. 
No. 224, in 
clause 9, page 8, line 18, at end insert— 
 '(7A) A copy of the improvement notice may be displayed in the residential premises affected, at the discretion of the local housing authority.'.

Edward Davey: We now move on to chapter 2—''Improvement notices, prohibition orders and hazard awareness notices''. We have reached the beginning of the enforcement regime for the standard rating system that we have just discussed. My amendments, which also stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, relate to how the occupant of the premises is affected by improvement notices. I should say at the start that I had not got to schedule 1 prior to tabling my amendment. Some of my concerns, which I have raised through the amendment, pertain to later parts of the Bill, which the Government have covered. However, this is still a useful opportunity to bring out some of the issues. I shall try to do so briefly, because I know that we will deal with them later.
 I seek to raise three points in tabling these amendments. First, how would the process deal with an occupant or tenant who was impeding and obstructing the implementation of an improvement notice? Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings also deal with that. It is worth getting on the record the Minister's response about what process he envisages would be adopted where a tenant or occupant was obstructing and impeding the implementation of an improvement notice. 
 Secondly, amendments Nos. 223 and 224 related to how those tenants or occupants would be affected during the remedial works. How would they be informed—would they be given time to find alternative accommodation? Although I am sure that it is not in the Government's mind that tenants should suddenly be made homeless through this process, we must be sure that there is protection for them. I understand, after a closer reading of the Bill, that the Government have a process for doing that. Under paragraph 5(1) of schedule 1 there is a requirement for notices to be served on the occupants. I have not picked up on that point because I am more relaxed about it. However, I would like some clarification on how the improvement notice procedure would work to ensure that the tenant or occupant had a chance to find alternative accommodation. Again, I am already anticipating future debates, particularly on clause 12. 
 Thirdly, although clause 12 does not specify what would happen as clearly as it might, my impression is that it would, through the improvement notice procedure, allow the notice to be suspended until such time as the occupant or tenant had found alternative 
 accommodation, or some other event had happened. If I have understood the Bill incorrectly, perhaps the Minister would explain what protections there are for tenants and occupants who are in a property needing remedial action due to category 1 and category 2 hazards, and what will become of them during the process of remedial works.

Keith Hill: I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. A number of answers to his questions are set out in the schedule. I understand that the Bill takes some working through and that he had not worked through to the schedule when he tabled his amendments. I have a degree of sympathy with him, so I will not be as cruel as my speaking notes.
 Where a local authority has a duty to take the most appropriate enforcement action on a category 1 hazard under clause 5, the serving of an improvement notice under clause 9 is one of the courses of action available to it, unless the premises are already the subject of an interim management order or final management order under part 4. The notice requires the person on whom it is served—normally the owner or landlord—to take the remedial action specified in the notice. The minimum action required by a notice must be sufficient to ensure that there is no longer a category 1 hazard. A notice can require an owner to remove a category 1 hazard from residential premises, and to take action in non-residential premises where the deficiency that gives rise to the hazard is located—for example, if dampness rises from commercial premises that have flats immediately above them, and remedial action is necessary for the health or safety of actual or potential occupiers of those flats. 
 Improvement notices will perform the function of repair notices under the current fitness regime, and are likely to be the most common response to a hazard. Amendment No. 222 reveals a misunderstanding of why a notice is served on an occupant. Schedule 1, as the hon. Gentleman has now discovered, requires copies of notices to be served on occupiers and people with a relevant interest. That is for their benefit and it is a matter of their right to know what action is being taken. Let me pause at the issue of obstruction. There are separate provisions in part 7 that deal with that. I draw the Committee's attention to those provisions and to the provisions of clause 33, which set out the penalties incurred by the obstruction of the work by any party. 
 Amendment No. 223 is motivated by a decent desire to protect the interests of occupants. If there is a serious hazard, the authority will be concerned to start the remedial work as soon as possible or to move the tenant away from the hazard. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the occupants' need for alternative accommodation. That is important, but we must remember that the tenant is moved away to remove the threat of a category 1 hazard from them. There is an urgency and priority about dealing with such a hazard, which may be threatening to life or limb. It would be wrong to leave a vulnerable tenant exposed to a high risk of injury.

Edward Davey: I certainly appreciate what the Minister is saying and the Government's intentions. If a tenant is in danger because of a category 1 hazard, one must take action. However, homelessness might be more damaging to a person's well-being than staying for a short period once the hazard has been brought to their attention. What would happen to that person and their family while the process was going on? What provisions do the Bill, a notice or a local housing authority make to ensure that families are not made temporarily homeless? That might be even worse than the hazard.

Keith Hill: If the local authority thinks that it would be safe, it can allow longer for the work to be carried out than the 28-day minimum period, if the occupants have a problem with that. An improvement notice will not always require the vacation of the premises; indeed, that would be an unusual situation. There is no universal prospect of large-scale homelessness. Indeed, consider experience heretofore of the application of the fitness standard. If interventions by local authorities were leading to significant levels of homelessness, we would all have heard about that as constituency MPs.
 In all circumstances, the occupier will get a clear copy of the notice and the time scale under paragraph 5(1) of schedule 1. If the work is so substantial—I come to the hon. Gentleman's point—that it cannot be carried out without great difficulty, it may lead the authority to prohibit the use of the dwelling altogether and consider alternative accommodation for the tenant. We intend to address that point in the guidance. It would be inappropriate to lay on the local authority the kind of obligation the hon. Gentleman refers to; there are a variety of responses to such a situation. There may be circumstances in which it would be inappropriate for the authorities to provide temporary accommodation for a particular type of occupant. There must be flexibility for the local authority to vacate the premises in a small number of cases where it might be necessary. We will deal with that in the guidance. 
 Amendment No. 224 is unnecessary. There is nothing to prevent the authority from displaying a copy of the improvement notice in the residential premises, although it will not absolve them of the duty, in paragraph 5 of schedule 1, to serve a copy of the notice on the occupier. In light of my response, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Edward Davey: The Minister's answer was helpful. I am glad he was not too cruel with me.
 The guidance will be crucial to this effect. Can the Minister give the Committee the assurance that if a tenant is asked to vacate a property quickly, as in the prohibition order—which we will come to—even though it may not be in statute, they will be provided with accommodation? Will he assure us that the guidance will make it clear when rehousing would be appropriate for a housing authority? 
 In view of the Minister's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - suspension of improvement notices

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 190, in
clause 12, page 9, line 42, leave out (b).

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 191, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 44, at end add— 
 '(6) An improvement notice shall be suspended where the occupier of the premises impedes or obstructs a landlord from complying with the notice. Such suspension shall continue until the tenant allows the necessary work to proceed unimpeded or the landlord acquires vacant possession. 
 (7) An improvement notice shall be suspended where following the service of the notice, the landlord has put in hand measures to cause the property to revert to single household occupancy'. 
No. 192, in 
clause 13, page 10, line 32, at end add— 
 '(9) An improvement notice shall be revoked in all cases where the HMO, in respect of which the notice was served, has reverted to single household occupancy'.

John Hayes: The amendments bring us back to the issues, debated a few moments ago, about proper protection for landlords, a much-maligned minority—although not by the Minister, who has previously given a balanced view on these matters. It is vital that we strike a balance between the proper expectations of tenants and the important role of landlords. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said in relation to his amendment to an earlier clause, we must build into this legislation a range of measures to protect landlords from the behaviour of irresponsible tenants. We know the picture is mixed. Some elements of the Bill deal specifically with the repercussions of the irresponsible behaviour of tenants. All members of the Committee would acknowledge that tenants are not always perfect. My amendments, particularly those that would amend clause 12, go some way to ensure that landlords receive appropriate protection.
 Amendment No. 191 is at the heart of the group. It is designed to clarify the position of landlords faced with obstructive or unco-operative tenants. The landlord would not be liable for incomplete work if they were prevented from undertaking it by the tenants. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole described a situation where tenants and landlord might be in dispute over a matter unrelated to the job in hand of work stipulated by the authority and the tenant might use that opportunity to pursue an unreasonable case against a landlord. 
 Proposed new subsection (7) in amendment No. 191 is an attempt to clarify the status of improvement notices should the property revert from multiple to single occupation. That is to ensure that if a notice were issued to complete improvement work, but the state of the property were to change in the interim—should the property change hands or, as is more specific to the amendment, should the landlord cease to rent out the property and decide to change it to single occupancy—the authority could issue a fresh notice that was applicable to the property under its new status, and the status of the original improvement notice would be revised. Both suggestions are not unhelpful, and they go some way to redress the balance in favour of landlords. That should be an important aspect of this clause. 
 I conclude my remarks in the expectation that the Minister will once again recognise the common sense of the amendments and embrace them. I am sure that had he thought of them first, he would have included them. If he will embrace them, we can move swiftly ahead with the whole Committee supporting the amendments.

Keith Hill: In response to the hon. Gentleman's invitation to embrace his amendments, in the immortal words of Evelyn Waugh:
 ''Up to a point, Lord Copper.'' 
Clause 12 would provide for an improvement notice to be suspended at the discretion of the local authority. For example, a notice may be suspended until such time as the current occupier ceases to occupy the premises. The notice may specify an event that will trigger the end of the suspension. Guidance on the use of suspended notices will be issued under clause 8. 
 I turn now to amendment No. 190 on the suspension of improvement notices, which was moved eloquently if not entirely persuasively by the hon. Gentleman. An ordinary unsuspended notice comes into operation 21 days after it is served by virtue of clause 14(2), and there are then seven further days before remedial works can be required to start by virtue of clause 11(3). The reason for the inclusion of clause 12(5)(b), which amendment No. 190 would leave out, is that in the case of a suspended notice the extra days can be dispensed with, because advance warning of the date on which suspension ends has already been given in the notice itself. 
 The first limb, as it were, of amendment No. 191 would relieve the person on whom an improvement notice is served of the responsibility to comply with it if he is obstructed in carrying out the necessary remedial works. Two issues are involved. The first is that the action required by the improvement notice is suspended for reasons that the local authority has already taken into account, following its assessment of the hazard and its likely impact on occupiers. It is not a reaction to an event occurring later. The second issue is that it cannot be in anyone's interest that enforcement action, which the authority will have 
 embarked on for good reason, should be deferred simply because the person on whom the notice is served has run into some difficulty. 
 Clause 28 makes it an offence to fail to comply with an improvement notice that has come into operation; but, of course, in any proceedings it is a defence if the person on whom the notice was served had reasonable excuse for failing to comply with it. In my view, that is the right balance. We need to bear in mind that the improvement notice is served to deal with a hazard from which people need protection.

John Hayes: I am surprised at the Minister. Earlier, he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Poole of being pedantic, but surely he is himself dancing on the head of a pin. The Minister is saying that, in law, it will be entirely possible for a landlord to use as a proper defence the fact that he could not reasonably comply with the notice because tenants were obstructing him and preventing him from doing so, yet he is not prepared to accept an amendment that anticipates that situation before it gets to law. Under the amendment, the local authority could say that it had properly served the notice because of the definition of the hazard, as the Minister described, but that it was impossible for the landlord to comply with its instructions because of his circumstance in respect of tenants. Surely that is simply a way of making the process fairer and easier, instead of causing the matter to go to law.

Keith Hill: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are provisions in the Bill for appropriate action against those seeking to obstruct in those circumstances, but I also remind him—we must never forget this—that the central focus of this part of the Bill is the fact that we are in the business of removing threat and danger to the occupants of premises. Frankly, I would be very reluctant to put in the Bill any phraseology that would offer the opportunity for irresponsible landlords to delay that process. I reiterate my conviction that, in the Bill and in law, a landlord has sufficient recourse and can take appropriate action to defend himself against a charge that he had behaved unreasonably.
 I now turn to the second limb of amendment No. 191 and to amendment No. 192. They would enable a landlord of a house in multiple occupation who is served with an improvement notice to avoid complying with the notice by reverting his property to a single household occupancy. I am genuinely shocked by those proposals. Clause 13 enables a local authority to revoke an improvement notice, although in the case of a category 1 hazard it may do so only if it is satisfied that there are special circumstances that make it appropriate to do so. 
 The amendments seem to assume that the reversion of a property from HMO to single occupancy household will make a hazard disappear. I accept that risks from fire, for example, are generally greater in HMOs than in single household premises, but dangerous stairs or exposed electrical wiring are still dangerous, however many people are in occupation. Those must be matters for the local authority's discretion. As I said, we give authorities that 
 discretion, and we trust them to apply it—primarily in the interests of those people who are at risk from hazards, but also with reasonable attention to the interests of landlords when those can safely be addressed.

John Hayes: I know that the Minister is a sensitive beast, and I do not want to shock him more than is necessary, but I made it clear that it would of course be open to the authority to issue a fresh notice, if appropriate, based on the property's new character. It seems entirely appropriate that, having issued a notice on the basis that the property is an HMO, we can look at the matter again if it ceases to be an HMO. After all, the whole basis of the Government's approach is to separate HMOs from other properties. However, since the guillotine is about to fall, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [6 November 2003] and the Order of the Committee [20 January], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 13 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Procedure and appeals relating to improvement notices

Amendments made: No. 81, in 
schedule 1, page 145, line 5, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'. 
No. 82, in 
schedule 1, page 145, line 29, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'. 
No. 83, in 
schedule 1, page 146, leave out lines 4 to 11 and insert— 
 '(3) A residential property tribunal may allow an appeal to be made to it after the end of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) or (2) if it is satisfied that there is a good reason for the failure to appeal before the end of that period (and for any delay since then in applying for permission to appeal out of time).'. 
No. 84, in 
schedule 1, page 146, line 13, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'. 
No. 85, in 
schedule 1, page 146, leave out line 18. 
No. 86, in 
schedule 1, page 146, line 19, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 87, in 
schedule 1, page 146, line 24, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 88, in 
schedule 1, page 146, line 31, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 89, in 
schedule 1, page 146, line 40, leave out 'court's' and insert 'tribunal's'. 
No. 90, in 
schedule 1, page 147, line 4, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 91, in
schedule 1, page 147, line 13, leave out 'judge' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 92, in 
schedule 1, page 147, line 14, leave out 'his judgment' and insert 'its decision'. 
No. 93, in 
schedule 1, page 147, line 17, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'. 
No. 94, in 
schedule 1, page 147, line 20, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 95, in 
schedule 1, page 147, line 23, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 96, in 
schedule 1, page 147, line 31, leave out 'Court of Appeal' and insert 'Lands Tribunal'. 
No. 97, in 
schedule 1, page 147, line 34, leave out 'Court of Appeal' and insert 'Lands Tribunal'. 
No. 98, in 
schedule 1, page 148, line 13, leave out 'Court of Appeal' and insert 'Lands Tribunal'. 
No. 99, in 
schedule 1, page 148, line 16, leave out 'Court of Appeal' and insert 'Lands Tribunal'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clauses 17 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Contents of prohibition orders

Amendments made: No. 27, in 
clause 20, page 14, line 22, leave out 
 'Schedule 1 to appeal against the decision to make' 
 and insert 
 'Schedule 2 to appeal against'. 
No. 28, in 
clause 20, page 14, line 36, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 21 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Procedure and appeals relating to prohibition orders

Amendments made: No. 100, in 
schedule 2, page 150, line 28, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'. 
No. 101, in 
schedule 2, page 150, line 42, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'. 
No. 102, in 
schedule 2, page 151, leave out lines 12 to 19 and insert— 
 '(3) A residential property tribunal may allow an appeal to be made to it after the end of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) or (2) if it is satisfied that there is a good reason for the failure to appeal before the end of that period (and for any delay since then in applying for permission to appeal out of time).'.
No. 103, in 
schedule 2, page 151, line 21, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'. 
No. 104, in 
schedule 2, page 151, leave out line 26. 
No. 105, in 
schedule 2, page 151, line 27, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 106, in 
schedule 2, page 151, line 33, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 107, in 
schedule 2, page 151, line 42, leave out 'judge' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 108, in 
schedule 2, page 151, line 43, leave out 'his judgment' and insert 'its decision'. 
No. 109, in 
schedule 2, page 152, line 2, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'. 
No. 110, in 
schedule 2, page 152, line 5, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 111, in 
schedule 2, page 152, line 8, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 112, in 
schedule 2, page 152, line 16, leave out 'Court of Appeal' and insert 'Lands Tribunal'. 
No. 113, in 
schedule 2, page 152, line 19, leave out 'Court of Appeal' and insert 'Lands Tribunal'. 
No. 114, in 
schedule 2, page 152, line 42, leave out 'Court of Appeal' and insert 'Lands Tribunal'. 
No. 115, in 
schedule 2, page 153, line 1, leave out 'Court of Appeal' and insert 'Lands Tribunal'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clauses 26 and 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Offence of failing to comply with improvement notice

Amendment made: No. 29, in 
clause 28, page 19, line 8, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - Improvement notices: enforcement action by local housing authorities

Amendments made: No. 20, in 
schedule 3, page 154, line 19, at end insert— 
 '(3A) Any person authorised in writing by the authority may enter any part of the specified premises for the purposes of the taking of any action which the authority are authorised to take under this paragraph. 
 (3B) The right of entry conferred by sub-paragraph (3A) may be exercised at any reasonable time.
 (3C) Any reference in this Part of this Schedule (of whatever nature) to a local housing authority entering any premises under this paragraph is a reference to their doing so in accordance with sub-paragraph (3A).'. 
No. 116, in 
schedule 3, page 156, line 5, leave out 
 'of a court on appeal, recoverable under an order of the court' 
 and insert 
 'given by a residential property tribunal on an appeal to the tribunal under paragraph 11, recoverable under an order of the tribunal'. 
No. 117, in 
schedule 3, page 156, line 21, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'. 
No. 118, in 
schedule 3, page 156, line 23, at end insert— 
 '(2A) A residential property tribunal may allow an appeal to be made to it after the end of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) if it is satisfied that there is a good reason for the failure to appeal before the end of that period (and for any delay since then in applying for permission to appeal out of time).'. 
No. 119, in 
schedule 3, page 156, line 30, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 120, in 
schedule 3, page 156, line 35, leave out 'Court of Appeal' and insert 'Lands Tribunal'. 
No. 121, in 
schedule 3, page 156, line 38, leave out 'Court of Appeal' and insert 'Lands Tribunal'. 
No. 122, in 
schedule 3, page 158, line 2, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'. 
No. 123, in 
schedule 3, page 158, line 3, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 124, in 
schedule 3, page 158, line 12, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 125, in 
schedule 3, page 158, line 14, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Schedule 3, as amended agreed to. 
 Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Offence of failing to comply with prohibition order etc.

Amendments made: No. 30, in 
clause 32, page 20, line 13, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'. 
No. 31, in 
clause 32, page 20, line 15, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 32, in 
clause 32, page 20, line 17, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 33, in 
clause 32, page 20, line 20, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 34, in 
clause 32, page 20, line 24, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 33 to 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 121

Clause 40Power to charge for certain enforcement action

Power to charge for certain enforcement action

Amendments made: No. 11, in 
clause 40, page 26, line 3, at end insert— 
 '(ca) taking emergency remedial action under section (Emergency remedial action); 
 (cb) making an emergency prohibition order under section (Emergency prohibition orders); or'. 
No. 12, in 
clause 40, page 26, line 10, at end insert— 
 '(2A) The expenses are, in the case of emergency remedial action under section (Emergency remedial action), the expenses incurred in— 
 (a) determining whether to take such action, and 
 (b) serving the notice required by subsection (7) of that section.'. 
No. 13, in 
clause 40, page 26, line 12, after first 'Act', insert 
 ', an emergency prohibition order under section (Emergency prohibition orders)'. 
No. 35, in 
clause 40, page 26, line 22, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - Recovery of charge under section 40

Amendments made: No. 14, in 
clause 41, page 26, line 32, at end insert— 
 '(2A) In the case of emergency remedial action under section (Emergency remedial action), the charge may be recovered from the person served with the notice required by subsection (7) of that section.'. 
No. 15, in 
clause 41, page 26, line 34, leave out second 'or' and insert— 
 '(aa) an emergency prohibition order under section (Emergency prohibition orders), or'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Index of defined expressions: Part 1

Amendment made: No. 36, in 
clause 43, page 28, line 14, at end insert— {**t cols="2"**} {**bt**} 
'Residential property tribunal {**c**}Section (Residential property tribunals)'. 
 [Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 122

New Clause 3Consultation with fire authorities incertain cases

Consultation with fire authorities incertain cases

'(1) This section applies where a local housing authority— 
 (a) are satisfied that a prescribed fire hazard exists in an HMO or in any common parts of a building containing one or more flats, and 
 (b) intend to take in relation to the hazard one of the kinds of enforcement action listed in section 5(2) or section 7(2). 
 (2) Before taking the enforcement action in question, the authority must consult the fire authority for the area in which the HMO or building is situated. 
 (3) In the case of any proposed emergency measures, the authority's duty under subsection (2) is a duty to consult that fire authority so far as it is practicable to do so before taking those measures. 
 (4) In this section— 
 ''emergency measures'' means emergency remedial action under section (Emergency remedial action) or an emergency prohibition order under section Emergency prohibition orders); 
 ''fire authority'' means— 
 (a) a fire authority constituted by a combination scheme under the Fire Services Act 1947 (c.41); 
 (b) a metropolitan county fire and defence authority; 
 (c) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; or 
 (d) a county council acting as the fire authority for its area under section 4 of the Fire Services Act 1947 (c.41); 
 ''prescribed fire hazard'' means a Category 1 or 2 hazard which is prescribed as a fire hazard for the purposes of this section by regulations under section 2.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4 - Emergency remedial action

'(1) If— 
 (a) the local housing authority are satisfied that a Category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises, and 
 (b) they are further satisfied that the hazard involves an imminent risk of serious harm to the health or safety of any of the occupiers of those or any other residential premises, and 
 (c) no interim or final management order is in force under Part 4 in relation to the premises mentioned in paragraph (a), 
 the taking by the authority of emergency remedial action under this section in respect of the hazard is a course of action available to the authority in relation to the hazard for the purposes of section 5 (category 1 hazards: general duty to take enforcement action). 
 (2) ''Emergency remedial action'' means such remedial action in respect of the hazard concerned as the authority consider immediately necessary in order to remove the imminent risk of serious harm within subsection (1)(b). 
 (3) Emergency remedial action under this section may be taken by the authority in relation to any premises in relation to which remedial action could be required to be taken by an improvement notice under section 9 (see subsections (3) and (4) of that section). 
 (4) Emergency remedial action under this section may be taken by the authority in respect of more than one category 1 hazard on the same premises or in the same building containing one or more flats. 
 (5) Paragraphs 3 to 5 of Schedule 3 (improvement notices: enforcement action by local authorities) apply in connection with the taking of emergency remedial action under this section as they apply in connection with the taking of the remedial action required by an improvement notice which has become operative but has not been complied with.
 But those paragraphs so apply with the modifications set out in subsection (6). 
 (6) The modifications are as follows— 
 (a) the right of entry conferred by paragraph 3(3A) may be exercised at any time; and 
 (b) the notice required by paragraph 4 (notice before entering premises) must (instead of being served in accordance with that paragraph) be served on every person, who to the authority's knowledge— 
 (i) is an occupier of the premises in relation to which the authority propose to take emergency remedial action, or 
 (ii) if those premises are common parts of a building containing one or more flats, is an occupier of any part of the building; but 
 (c) that notice is to be regarded as so served if a copy of it is fixed to some conspicuous part of the premises or building. 
 (7) Within the period of seven days beginning with the date when the authority start taking emergency remedial action, the authority must serve— 
 (a) a notice under section (Notice of emergency remedial action), and 
 (b) copies of such a notice, 
 on the persons on whom the authority would be required under Part 1 of Schedule 1 to serve an improvement notice and copies of it. 
 (8) Section 178 (warrant to authorise entry) applies for the purpose of enabling a local housing authority to enter any premises to take emergency remedial action under this section in relation to the premises, as if— 
 (a) that purpose were mentioned in subsection (2) of that section, and 
 (b) the circumstances as to which the justice of the peace must be satisfied under subsection (4) were that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the authority will not be able to gain admission to the premises without a warrant. 
 (9) For the purposes of the operation of any provision relating to improvement notices as it applies by virtue of this section in connection with emergency remedial action or a notice under section (Notice of emergency remedial action), any reference in that provision to the specified premises is to be read as a reference to the premises specified, in accordance with section (Notice of emergency remedial action)(2)(c), as those in relation to which emergency remedial action has been (or is to be) taken.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5 - Notice of emergency remedial action

'(1) The notice required by section (Emergency remedial action)(7)) is a notice which complies with the following requirements of this section. 
 (2) The notice must specify, in relation to the hazard (or each of the hazards) to which it relates— 
 (a) the nature of the hazard and the residential premises on which it exists, 
 (b) the deficiency giving rise to the hazard, 
 (c) the premises in relation to which emergency remedial action has been (or is to be) taken by the authority under section (Emergency remedial action) and the nature of that remedial action, 
 (d) the power under which that remedial action has been (or is to be) taken by the authority, and 
 (e) the date when that remedial action was (or is to be) started. 
 (3) The notice must contain information about— 
 (a) the right to appeal under section (Appeals against emergency measures) against the decision of the authority to make the order, and
 (b) the period within which an appeal may be made.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6 - Recovery of expenses of taking emergency remedial action

'(1) This section relates to the recovery by a local housing authority of expenses reasonably incurred in taking emergency remedial action under section (Emergency remedial action) (''emergency expenses''). 
 (2) Paragraphs 6 to 14 of Schedule 3 (improvement notices: enforcement action by local authorities) apply for the purpose of enabling a local housing authority to recover emergency expenses as they apply for the purpose of enabling such an authority to recover expenses incurred in taking remedial action under paragraph 3 of that Schedule. 
 But those paragraphs so apply with the modifications set out in subsection (3). 
 (3) The modifications are as follows— 
 (a) any reference to the improvement notice is to be read as a reference to the notice under section (Notice of emergency remedial action); and 
 (b) no amount is recoverable in respect of any emergency expenses until such time (if any) as is the operative time for the purposes of this subsection (see subsection (4)). 
 (4) This subsection gives the meaning of ''the operative time'' for the purposes of subsection (3)— 
 (a) if no appeal against the authority's decision to take the emergency remedial action is made under section (Appeals against emergency measures) before the end of the period of 28 days mentioned in subsection (3)(a) of that section, ''the operative time'' is the end of that period; 
 (b) if an appeal is made under that section within that period and a decision is given on the appeal which confirms the authority's decision, ''the operative time'' is as follows— 
 (i) if the period within which an appeal to the Lands Tribunal may be brought expires without such an appeal having been brought, ''the operative time'' is the end of that period; 
 (ii) if an appeal to the Lands Tribunal is brought, ''the operative time'' is the time when a decision is given on the appeal which confirms the authority's decision. 
 (5) For the purposes of subsection (4)— 
 (a) the withdrawal of an appeal has the same effect as a decision which confirms the authority's decision, and 
 (b) references to a decision which confirms the authority's decision are to a decision which confirms it with or without variation.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7 - Emergency prohibition orders

'(1) If— 
 (a) the local housing authority are satisfied that a Category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises, and 
 (b) they are further satisfied that the hazard involves an imminent risk of serious harm to the health or safety of any of the occupiers of those or any other residential premises, and 
 (c) no interim or final management order is in force under Part 4 in relation to the premises mentioned in paragraph (a), 
 making an emergency prohibition order under this section in respect of the hazard is a course of action available to the authority in relation to the hazard for the purposes of section 5 (category 1 hazards: general duty to take enforcement action).
 (2) An emergency prohibition order under this section is an order imposing, with immediate effect, such prohibition or prohibitions on the use of any premises as are specified in the order in accordance with subsection (3) and section Contents of emergency prohibition orders. 
 (3) As regards the imposition of any such prohibition or prohibitions, the following provisions apply to an emergency prohibition order as they apply to a prohibition order under section 18— 
 (a) subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and 
 (b) subsections (3) to (5) and (7) to (9) of section 20. 
 (4) Part 1 of Schedule 2 (service of copies of prohibition orders) applies in relation to an emergency prohibition order as it applies to a prohibition order, but any requirement to serve copies within a specified period of seven days is to be read as a reference to serve them on the day on which the emergency prohibition order is made (or, if that is not possible, as soon after that day as is possible). 
 (5) The following provisions also apply to an emergency prohibition order as they apply to a prohibition order (or to a prohibition order which has become operative, as the case may be)— 
 (a) section 23 (revocation and variation); 
 (b) sections 30 to 34 (enforcement); 
 (c) sections 35 to 37 (supplementary provisions); and 
 (d) Part 2 of Schedule 2 (notices relating to revocation or variation); 
 (e) Part 3 of that Schedule (appeals) so far as it relates to any decision to vary, or to refuse to revoke or vary, a prohibition order; and 
 (f) sections 584A and 584B of the Housing Act 1985 (c.68) (payment, and repayment, of compensation). 
 (6) For the purposes of the operation of any provision relating to prohibition orders as it applies in connection with emergency prohibition orders by virtue of this section or section (Appeals relating to emergency measures), any reference in that provision to the specified premises is to be read as a reference to the premises specified, in accordance with section Contents of emergency prohibition orders(2)(c), as the premises in relation to which prohibitions are imposed by the order.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8 - Contents of emergency prohibition orders

'(1) An emergency prohibition order under section (Emergency prohibition orders) must comply with the following requirements of this section. 
 (2) The order must specify, in relation to the hazard (or each of the hazards) to which it relates— 
 (a) the nature of the hazard concerned and the residential premises on which it exists, 
 (b) the deficiency giving rise to the hazard, 
 (c) the premises in relation to which prohibitions are imposed by the order (see subsections (3) and (4) of section 20 as applied by section (Emergency prohibition orders)(3)), and 
 (d) any remedial action which the authority consider would, if taken in relation to the hazard, result in their revoking the order under section 23 (as applied by section (Emergency prohibition orders)(5)). 
 (3) The order must contain information about— 
 (a) the right to appeal under section (Appeals against emerg ency measures) against the order, and 
 (b) the period within which an appeal may be made, 
 and specify the date on which the order is made.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Column Number: 126

New Clause 9Appeals relating to emergency measures

Appeals relating to emergency measures

'(1) A person on whom a notice under section (Notice of emergency remedial action) has been served in connection with the taking of emergency remedial action under section (Emergency remedial action) may appeal to a residential property tribunal against the decision of the local housing authority to take that action. 
 (2) A relevant person may appeal to a residential property tribunal against an emergency prohibition order. 
 (3) An appeal under subsection (1) or (2) must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with— 
 (a) the date specified in the notice under section (Notice of emergency remedial action) as the date when the emergency remedial action was (or was to be) started, or 
 (b) the date specified in the emergency prohibition order as the date on which the order was made, 
 as the case may be. 
 (4) A residential property tribunal may allow an appeal to be made to it after the end of that period if it is satisfied that there is a good reason for the failure to appeal before the end of that period (and for any delay since then in applying for permission to appeal out of time). 
 (5) An appeal under subsection (1) or (2)— 
 (a) is to be by way of a re-hearing, but 
 (b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority were unaware. 
 (6) The tribunal may— 
 (a) in the case of an appeal under subsection (1), confirm, reverse or vary the decision of the authority; 
 (b) in the case of an appeal under subsection (2), confirm or vary the emergency prohibition order or make an order revoking it as from a date specified in that order. 
 (7) Paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 applies for the purpose of identifying who is a relevant person for the purposes of subsection (2) in relation to an emergency prohibition order as it applies for the purpose of identifying who is a relevant person for the purposes of Part 3 of that Schedule in relation to a prohibition order.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10 - Repeal of provisions relating to demolition of obstructive buildings

'Omit sections 283 to 288 of the Housing Act 1985 (c.68) (demolition of obstructive buildings).'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11 - Transfer of jurisdiction in respect of appeals relating to demolition orders etc.

'(1) Part 9 of the Housing Act 1985 (c.68) (slum clearance) is further amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 269 (right of appeal against demolition order etc.)— 
 (a) in subsection (1), for ''the county court'' substitute ''a residential property tribunal''; 
 (b) in subsection (3), for ''court'' substitute ''tribunal''; and 
 (c) in subsection (6)(a) and (b), for ''Court of Appeal'' substitute ''Lands Tribunal''.
 (3) In section 272 (demolition orders)— 
 (a) in subsection (2), for ''the court'' in the first place it appears substitute ''a residential property tribunal'', and in the second place it appears substitute ''such a tribunal''; 
 (b) in subsection (5), for the words from the beginning to ''and has'' substitute ''A residential property tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings under subsection (1) (as well as those under subsection (2)), and a county court has''; and 
 (c) in subsection (6), for ''the court'' substitute ''a tribunal or court''. 
 (4) In section 317 (power of court to determine lease where premises demolished etc.)— 
 (a) in subsection (1), for ''the county court'' substitute ''a residential property tribunal''; and 
 (b) in subsections (2) and (3), for ''court'' substitute ''tribunal''. 
 (5) In section 318 (power of court to authorise execution of works on unfit premises or for improvement)— 
 (a) in the sidenote, for ''court'' substitute ''tribunal''; 
 (b) in subsection (1), for ''the court'' in the first place it appears substitute ''a residential property tribunal'', and in the second place it appears substitute ''the tribunal''; 
 (c) in subsections (2) and (3), for ''court'' substitute ''tribunal''; and 
 (d) omit subsection (4).'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Column Number: 128

New Clause 18Miscellaneous repeals etc. in relation to fire hazards

Miscellaneous repeals etc. in relation to fire hazards

'(1) In the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (c.xcvii)— 
 (a) omit section 35(1)(c)(i) (protection against fire in certain old buildings let in flats or tenements); 
 (b) in section 36(1) (projecting shops in which persons are employed or sleep) omit ''or sleep''; and 
 (c) in section 37(1) (means of access to roofs), in paragraph (b) for the words from ''except'' onwards substitute ''except to the extent that it is occupied for residential purposes;''. 
 (2) In the County of Merseyside Act 1980 (c.x) omit section 48 (means of escape from fire) and section 49(1) and (2) (maintenance of means of escape from fire). 
 (3) In the Building Act 1984 (c.55) omit section 72(6)(a) (means of escape from fire in case of certain buildings let in flats or tenements). 
 (4) In the Leicestershire Act 1985 (c.xvii) omit section 54(6)(a) (means of escape from fire in case of certain buildings used as flats or tenements).'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. 
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.
 Hill, Keith  Iddon, Dr.  Rooney, Mr.  Ruane, Chris  Selous, Andrew  Smith, Geraldine  Syms, Mr.  Whitehead, Dr.